Educational Research and Reviews Vol. 6(1), pp.

102-109, January 2011

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
ISSN 1990-3839 2011 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Effects of cooperative integrated reading and

composition (CIRC) technique on reading-writing skills
Erhan Durukan
Department of Turkish Education, Faculty of Fatih Education, Black Sea Technical University, Turkey.
E-mail: erhandurukan@gmail.com. Tel: +905327013400.
Accepted 29 December, 2010

The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of the cooperative integrated reading and composition
(CIRC) technique and the traditional reading and writing pedagogical methods for primary school
th
students. The study group was composed of 45 7 grade students enrolled at a primary school at the
centre of Giresun Province in the 2009/2010 academic year. Pre-test-post-test control group model
was adopted in the present study. Experimental and control groups were randomly assigned: 24
students were grouped into experimental group and 21 students into control group. Written Expression
Achievement Test (WEAT) and Reading Comprehension Achievement Test (RCAT), both developed by
the researcher, were used to collect data related to the study groups writing skills and reading
comprehension skills, respectively. Results were analyzed via 2-way ANOVA test in the SPSS program.
WEAT and RCAT were applied as pre-, post- and retention-test to the control and experimental groups.
At the end of the statistical analysis, it was revealed that there was a statistically significant difference
between the reading and writing skills of the experimental and control groups in terms of academic
achievement and retention. This difference was discovered in favour of the cooperative integrated
reading and composition technique.

Key words: Reading, writing, cooperative integrated reading and composition technique, traditional teaching.

INTRODUCTION

Reading and writing skills are very important in the
context of language teaching and use. Writing is the most
concrete and systematic of the language skills. The more
developed the writing skill, the more systematic the
individuals overall use of language. By this way, a
person can speak, read and listen in a more accurate and
effective way (Bryson, 2003). Writing is to individual
expression what reading is to comprehension. Among
language skills, reading together with writing is the first
skill to be learnt. It is also known that, in the learning
process, there is a high correlation between reading
comprehension and academic achievement.
Reading and writing are two basic language skills that
are important from the first phase of primary education.
These skills fall in the context of mother language
learning. Students can learn by writing and reading and a
teacher can teach by reading and writing or having
students read or write (Bloom, 1979; Yaln, 2002).
Pedagogy to be adopted in the teaching process should
ensure both accurate comprehension and correct and
effective self-expression by students during reading and
writing activities. Teachers need information and
experience to choose appropriate teaching methods for
specific learning environments (Kapka and Oberman,
2001).
Curricula renewed according to student-centred
teaching approach require use of strategies, methods
and techniques complying with a constructivist approach
and involving active student participation in the learning
process. One of the approaches parallel to this teaching
approach is cooperative learning.
Cooperative learning can be defined as a learning

approach in which small, mixed student groups form both
in-the-class and out-of-the-class environments to ensure
students help each other in learning an academic subject
in the scope of a common goal; where their self-esteem
increases and their communication, problem-solving and
critical thinking skills develop; and where they actively
participate in the teaching-learning process (Bowen,
2000; Doymus, 2007; Eilks, 2005; Gillies, 2006; Hanze
and Berger, 2007; Hennessy and Evans, 2006; Levine,
2001; Lin, 2006).
Cooperative integrated reading and composition
(CIRC) technique, one of the learning techniques based
on cooperation, is designed to develop reading, writing
and other language skills in the upper grades of primary
education. CIRC technique presents a structure that
increases not only opportunities for direct teaching in
reading and writing but also applicability of composition
writing techniques (Akgz, 1992; Yaman, 1999). composition and grammar activities) via worksheets
CIRC technique is developed to support traditionally-
used skill-based reading groups approach. Firstly,
reading groups are established in the classroom. Next,
students are paired off within the groups. When the
teacher works with a reading group, couples try to teach
each other meaningful reading and writing skills by using
reciprocal learning technique. They help each other in
performing basic skill-building activities (such as oral
reading, contextual guessing, asking questions,
summarizing, writing a composition based on the story,
revising-correcting composition). In general, team books
are published at the end of this process. Teams are
rewarded for all reading and writing assignments on the
basis of the average performance of group members.
Thus, equal change for achievement, group support for
achievement, and the performance, all basic components
of cooperative learning ensure realization of personal
responsibility (Senemo lu, 1997; Slavin, 1980).
Implementation process of CIRC technique
Introduction by teacher: Firstly of all, teacher shares
basic information with classroom.
Group work: 4 or 5 student groups were established.
Worksheets and other materials prepared by teacher
were handed out to group members. Depending on the
content of the work, students can collectively answer the
questions and answers can be checked by each member
and conveyed to other groups. Other members also
control the answers and the process continues this way.
Assessment: Depending on the features of the selected
technique, skills or information learnt by students in
relation to course content are assessed by students
individually or cooperatively.
Durukan 103
Detection of successful groups: Individual and group
assessment of the student scores are entered on a group
scoreboard and the resulting scores are summed. The
group with the highest final score is rewarded (Yaman,
1999).
Internal structure of CIRC technique consists of elements
such as knowing individuals well, establishing proper
groups, ensuring inter-group communication, using
materials appropriate for the content in a timely and
orderly manner, supporting groups, fostering cooperation,
group and individual assessment. The teacher is the
primary actor who realises, regulates and supports these
phases. The instructors experience and knowledge are
important for achieving success in these activities. Skilful
performance of reading (silent and oral) comprehension
activities as well as expressive activities (such as writing
organized as per the principles of CIRC technique is
proportional to the teachers guidance and close
cooperation (Stevens and Slavin, 1995).
Studies in life and social science fields show that
cooperative learning techniques are used to test different
problems and are recognised to have positive effects in
this scope (Doymus, 2007; Maloof and White, 2005;
Slavin et al., 1995; Siegel, 2005). In light of the results
obtained in the studies on cooperative learning, CIRC
technique can be suggested to be effective language
pedagogy.
The present study aimed to compare the effects of
CIRC technique and traditional teaching methods on
reading and writing skill.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An experimental method of pre-test-post-test control group was
used in this study. Experimental group students were taught via
CIRC technique while control group students were taught via
traditional teaching methods.
Study group
The study group was composed of 45 7th grade students enrolled at
a primary school in the centre of Giresun Province during the
2009/2010 academic year. Students in the study group were
randomly sampled into an experimental group composed of 24
students to be taught via CIRC technique and a control group
composed of 21 students to be taught via traditional teaching
method.
Data collection tools
Reading comprehension achievement test (RCAT)
To assess the effects of the adopted methods on the reading
comprehension skills of primary school students, Reading
Comprehension Achievement Test (RCAT), developed by the
researchers, was used in this study. A 40 item pool was created for
104 Educ. Res. Rev.

Table 1. Schematic appearance of test process. Implementation was undertaken by the researcher in experimental
and control groups by applying appropriate method and technique
Pre- Implementation Post- for 5 weeks on a basis of 2 h/week (Table 1).
Groups Retention
test process test
RCAT Traditional RCAT RCAT Procedures related to experimental group
Control
teaching
Experimental WEAT CIRC WEAT WEAT 1. Pre-tests were made in the first week of implementation.
Students in the experimental group were informed of the group
works required by CIRC technique. We explained how the groups
would be established, duties would be assigned and the activities
would be carried out. Taking into consideration various student
Table 2. Group names and slogans. characteristics such as sex, achievement, interest, skills, age and
culture, the experimental group was divided into 46 member groups
according to CIRC technique. On the basis of previous report cards,
Groups Name Slogan
two successful, two unsuccessful and two improving students were
Group A A Team Clapping assigned to each group.
Group B Hunters Binocular 2. In the second week of implementation, preparatory works were
Group C The unrivalled Dance carried out in relation to the subject and cooperative learning before
actual initiation of CIRC technique implementation. In the scope of
Group D Detectives Magnifying the preparatory works, techniques such as questions-answers and
brain-storming were adopted and group work activities (such as
discussion, deciding on the name of the group, etc.) were carried
out. Names and slogans of the groups are listed in Table 2.
3. In the third week of the implementation, sentences and texts in
RCAT. The pool was composed of standardised examination the worksheets handed out to students were read in the scope of
questions from previous years. After the first draft of the 40 item reading skill development. Students were sub-divided into pairs.
achievement test was analyzed by Turkish teachers, 10 questions These couples tried to read accurately first the texts in their own
were eliminated by also taking into consideration the subject-related worksheet and then the texts in others worksheets. The researcher
gains. Reliability of the resulting 30 item test was tested via a pre- checked the group readings in terms of sound utilisation, stress,
application on 20 primary school students. Data analysis obtained intonation, spelling and punctuation and asked student to make
from pre-application resulted in a reduction of the number of items corrections whenever required. Two questions were asked to each
in the pool to 25. Analysis showed that difficulty level of the test group in relation to reading comprehension skill. These questions
items was heterogeneous in 0.24 to 0.83 range and that the tests were meant to be answered together. Given answers were entered
average difficulty was at 0.50 level. The tests internal consistency on the groups scoreboard. This process aimed to develop students
reliability coefficient was calculated to be 0.79 via KR-20 formula. oral reading and reading comprehension skills.
Each item of RCAT was assigned a value of 1 point. 4. In the fourth week of implementation, groups were asked to write
down the sentences written by the teacher on the blackboard to
improve their writing skill. Firstly, the different groups and the
Written expression achievement test (WEAT) researcher checked their sentences. Each group selected a copyist.
The researcher called each groups copyist to the board. After the
Data related to students written expression skills were collected via copyists wrote the group answers on the board, all groups
Written Expression Achievement Test (WEAT). WEAT was assessed the answers of other groups. Groups opposed to the
developed by researchers who selected test items from among the answers offered reasons for their opposition. Teacher checked the
standardised examination questions of previous years. The tests sentences written on the board. The researcher entered the results
first development phase was to create a 50 item pool. The number of these practices on the scoreboard. This process aimed to
of items was reduced to 30 after consulting expert opinions. The develop students accurate writing skill and making meaningful
achievement tests reliability was verified via a pilot application on sentence skill.
20 students. Reliability analysis made after the pilot application 5. In the fifth week of implementation; the researcher entered
showed that 5 items on the test had low reliability; thus, they were performance exerted by groups in the previous activities on each
omitted, reducing the number of items to 25. The difficulty level of groups scoreboard and the most successful group was awarded in
the test items was found to be in the 0.32 to 0.90 range and the class in the fifth week. In the overall implementation process,
tests internal consistency reliability coefficient of the test was 0.85 groups were asked 10 questions and activities related to reading
(via KR-20 formula). Each item on the achievement test was and writing skills. Each of these questions and activities were
assigned value of 1 point. assigned a value of 1 point. Hunters and The Unrivalled answered
9 of 10 questions and activities correctly and were awarded
Achievement Certificate as the most successful groups in class.
Procedure Achievement status of groups is shown in Table 3.

To find if there was a statistically significant difference between the

achievements of the experimental group (taught with CIRC Procedures related to control group
technique) and control group (taught with traditional methods) in
terms of reading and writing skills, both the experimental and Courses were managed by the researchers via traditional teaching
control groups were applied RCAT and WEAT as pre-test. method. In the first week, pre-tests were made and students were
 Durukan 105

Table 3. Group scoreboard.

Question and activities A team Hunters The unrivalled Detectives

1 + - + +
2 - + + -
3 + + + +
4 + + + -
5 - + - -
6 - + + +
7 + + + +
8 - + + -
9 + + + -
10 + + + +
Total 6 points 9 points 9 points 5 points

Table 4. Experimental-control group RCAT mean scores and standard deviation.

Pre test Post test Retention test

Groups n
S.d. S.d. S.d.
* * *
Experimental 24 13.42(53%) 2.02 23.29 (93%) 1.55 19.92 (75%) 2.062
* *
Control 21 13.52 (54%) 2.09 19.95(80%) 1.88 16.86 (67%)* 1.94
*Absolute achievement level= mean/maximum score.

informed about the objectives. The researcher prepared a daily
lesson plan (in such a way to include the gains specified in the
Turkish Language Teaching Plan) for each objective to be taught
via traditional teaching method. Reading and writing works were
limited to the activities listed in student workbooks.
After the implementation, experimental and control group
students were applied RCAT and WEAT as post-test. Four weeks
after the implementation, RCAT and WEAT were re-applied as
retention test.
Data analysis
Data obtained from the pre, post and retention-test of the
experiment and control groups were analyzed via SPSS package
program. Two-way ANOVA technique was used in the analysis of
the data obtained from RCAT, WEAT so as to find if there was a
statistically significant difference between experimental and control
group students. Study findings were analyzed at (p) 0.05
significance level.
FINDINGS
Findings related to reading comprehension skills
As can be understood from Table 4, arithmetic RCAT
pre-test mean of the experimental group was = 13.42. It
rose to = 23.29 in the post-test and decreased to
= 19.92 in the retention test. Mean scores of the control
group, on the other hand, were = 13.52, 19.95 and
16.86 in the pre-test, post-test and retention-test,
respectively. According to these findings, mean scores of
both experimental and control group students increased.
When considered in terms of absolute achievement level,
experimental group students were found to achieve 53%
of the target in the pre-test, 93% of the target in the post-
test and 73% of the target in the retention test. Control
group students, on the other hand, were recorded to
achieve 54, 80 and 67% of the target in the pre-test, pos-
test and retention-test, respectively.
Examination of the data presented in Table 5 points out
a statistically significant difference between the pre-
implementation and post-implementation RCAT pre-test,
post-test and retention-test results of experimental and
control groups (F(1, 43)=18.722; p<0.05). This finding
shows that there is a difference between the mean
scores of experimental and control group students
without any measurement distinction (pre- and post-
implementation). However, the table also suggests that
there is a statistically significant difference between the
pre-implementation and post-implementation mean scores
of students without any group distinction (experimental or
control group) as well (in relation to the basic
measurement effect) (F (2, 86) = 463.816; p < 0.05). This
106 Educ. Res. Rev.

Table 5. RCAT ANOVA results of experimental and control groups.

Source of variance Sum of squares Df Mean squares F Sig.

Inter-sample 487.215 44
Group (CIRC-traditional) 147.784 1 147.784 18.722 0.000
Error 339.431 43 7.894
Intra-Sample 1731.658 90
Measurement (Pre-post-retention) 1509.629 2 754.814 463.816 0.000
Group*measurement 82.073 2 41.037 25.216 0.000
Error 139.956 86 1.627
Total 2218.873 134
*p<0.05.

Figure 1. Change in mean RCAT scores of experimental and control

groups.

finding can be interpreted such that pre-test and post-test
achievements of experimental and control groups
increased and that their retention levels were higher than
that of pre-test.
Table 5 also reveals a statistically significant
relationship in terms of the common effect (of being in
different groups [experimental and control groups] and
different measurement periods [pre, post and retention-
test]) on the mean student scores (F(2, 86)= 25.216;
p<0.05). This finding proves that change in the mean
scores of experimental group students was different from
that in the mean scores of the control group students, at
a statistically significant level.
Figure 1 shows that the experimental groups mean
RCAT pre-test scores did not differ from those of the
control group. However, there was a statistically
significant difference in the post-test and retention-test
scores of the two groups, in favour of the experimental
group.
Findings related to written expression skill
As can be understood from Table 6, arithmetic WEAT
pre-test mean of the experimental group was = 12.13; it
rose to = 22.54 in the post-test and decreased to =
19.08 in the retention test. Mean scores of the control
group, on the other hand, were = 13.00, 20.62 and
17.05 in the pre-test, post-test and retention-test,
respectively. According to these findings, mean scores of
both experimental and control group students increased.
When considered in terms of absolute achievement level,
experimental group students were found to achieve 49%
of the target in the pre-test, 90% of the target in the post-
test and 76% of the target in the retention test. Control
group students, on the other hand, were recorded to
achieve 52, 82 and 68% of the target in the pre-test, pos-
test and retention-test, respectively.
Examination of the data presented in Table 7 points out
no statistically significant difference between the
 Durukan 107

Table 6. Experimental-control group WEAT mean scores and standard deviation.

Pre test Post test Retention test

Group n
S.d. S.d. S.d.
* * *
Experimental 24 12.13(49%) 2.40 22.54(90%) 2.54 19.08(76%) 2.39
* *
Control 21 13.00(52%) 2.00 20.62(82%) 2.12 17.05(68%)* 2.13
*Absolute achievement level= mean/maximum score.

Table 7. WEAT ANOVA results of experimental and control groups.

Source of Variance Sum of squares Df Mean squares F Sig.

Inter-sample 589.882 44
Group (CIRC-traditional) 35.493 1 35.493 2.753 0.104
Error 554.389 43 12.893
Intra-Sample 2029.949 90
Measurement (Pre-post-retention) 1851.119 2 925.560 674.946 0.000
Group*measurement 60.897 2 30.449 22.204 0.000
Error 117.933 86 1.371
Total 2619.831 134
*p>0.05.

Figure 2. Change in mean WEAT scores of experimental and control groups.

pre-implementation and post-implementation WEAT pre-
test, post-test and retention-test results of experimental
and control groups (F(1, 43)=2.753; p>0.05). This finding
shows that there was no difference between the mean
scores of experimental and control group students
without any measurement distinction (pre and post-
implementation). However, the table also suggests that
there was a statistically significant difference between the
pre-implementation and post-implementation mean
scores of students without any group distinction
(experimental or control group) as well (in relation to the
basic measurement effect) (F (2, 86)= 674.946; p<0.05).
This finding can be interpreted such that pre-test and
post-test achievement of experimental and control groups
increased and that their retention level was higher than
that of the pre-test.
The table also reveals a statistically significant
relationship in terms of the common effect (of being in
different groups [experimental and control groups] and
different measurement periods [pre-, post-, retention-
test]) on the mean student scores (F(2, 86)= 22.204;
p<0.05). This finding proves that change in the mean
scores of experimental group students was different from
that in the mean scores of the control group students, at
a statistically significant level.
Figure 2 shows that the experimental groups mean
WEAT pre-test scores did not differ from those of the
control group. However, there was a statistically
108 Educ. Res. Rev.
significant difference in the post-test and retention-test
scores of the two groups, in favour of the experimental
group.
In the light of above-listed findings, it can be concluded
that CIRC technique implemented in the experimental
group and the traditional method adopted in the control
group are effective reading and writing achievement and
level of retention; however, CIRC technique is more
effective than the traditional method.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This study, which aimed to analyze the effects of CIRC
technique and traditional teaching method on primary
school students reading comprehension and written
expression skills, produced results in favour of CIRC
technique.
Regarding the findings obtained in relation to reading
comprehension skill: Arithmetic RCAT pre-test mean of
the experimental group was = 13.42. It rose to = 23.29
in the post-test and decreased to = 19.92 in the
retention test. Mean scores of the control group, on the
other hand, were = 13.52,19.95 and 16.86 in the pre-
test, post-test and retention-test, respectively. According
to these findings, an increase was recorded in the mean
scores of both experimental and control group students.
Analysis of the obtained data revealed a statistically
significant relationship in terms of the common effect (of
being in different groups [experimental and control
groups] and different measurement periods [pre, post and
retention-test]) on the mean student scores (F(2, 86)=
25.216; p<0.05). Findings obtained in the present study in
relation to the effect of CIRC on reading comprehension
skill are similar to the results produced by some other
studies (Aksakal, 2002; Bromley and Modlo, 1997;
Do an, 2002; Ghaith, 2003a; Ghaith, 2003b; Gngr,
2004; Hess, 2004; Kayran and flazo lu, 2007; Pala,
1995; Sachs et al., 2003; Shaaban, 2006).
Regarding the findings obtained in relation to written
expression skill: Arithmetic WEAT pre-test mean of the
experimental group was = 12.13. It rose to = 22.54 in
the post-test and decreased to = 19.08 in the retention
test. Mean scores of the control group, on the other hand,
were = 13.00, 20.62 and 17.05 in the pre-test, post-test
and retention-test, respectively. According to these
findings, mean written expression achievement scores of
both experimental and control group students increased.
Analysis of the obtained data revealed a statistically
significant relationship in terms of the common effect (of
being in different groups (experimental and control
groups) and different measurement periods (pre, post
and retention-test) on the mean student scores. Findings
obtained in the present study in relation to the effect of
CIRC on written expression skill are similar to the results
produced by some literature studies (F(2, 86)= 22.204;
p<0.05).
Conclusion
These findings generally suggest that CIRC technique
and traditional method are effective on reading
comprehension and writing expression skills; however,
CIRC technique used in the experimental group is more
effective for achievement and retention level than the
traditional method. In light of these results, it is suggested
that CIRC and other cooperative teaching methods (such
as Jigsaw, Cooperative Learning, Team-Game-
Tournament, etc.) benefit language acquisition (Calderon
et al., 1997; Chen, 2004; Madden et al., 1986; Stevens
and Slavin, 1995; Stevens, 2003; Yaman, 1999).
REFERENCES
Acikgoz KU (1992). Cooperative learning, theory, research, practice.
Malatya: Ugurel Publications.
Aksakal OD (2002). The effect of cooperative learning language
training. Unpublished master thesis, Dokuz Eylul University
Educational Sciences Institute, Izmir, Turkey.
Bloom BS (1979). Human characteristics and school learning. Ankara:
Milli Egitim Publications.
Bowen CW (2000). A quantitative literature review of cooperative
learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement. J.
Chem. Educ., 77(1): 116-119.
Bromley K, Modlo M (1997). Using cooperative learning to improve
reading and writing in language arts. Reading Writing Q.. 13(1): 21-
35.
Bryson FK (2003). An examination of two methods of delivering writing
instruction to fourth grade students. Unpublished master thesis,
Texas Womans University, Texas.
Calderon M, Hertz-Lazarowitz R, Ivory G, Slavin RE (1997). Effects of
bilingual cooperative ntegrated reading and composition on students
transitioning from spanish to english reading, center for research on
the education of students placed at risk.
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techreports/report10.pdf. Accessed
24 June 2010.
Chen ML (2004). A study of the effects of cooperative learning
strategies on student achievement in english as a foreign language in
a Taiwan college. Unpublished PhD thesis, Spalding University,
Taiwan.
Dogan B (2002). Teaching strategy, cooperative and traditional classes,
reading comprehension skills, their effects on prompt and retention.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Dokuz Eylul University Educational
Sciences Institute, Izmir, Turkey.
Doymus K (2007). The effect of a cooperative learning strategy in the
teaching of phase and one-component phase diagrams. J. Chem.
Educ., 84(11): 1857-1860.
Eilks I (2005). Experiences and reflections about teaching atomic
structure in a jigsaw classroom in lower secondary school chemistry
lessons. J. Chem. Educ., 82(2): 313319.
Ghaith GM (2003). Relationship between reading attitudes,
achievement, and learners perceptions of their jigsaw II cooperative
learning experience. Read. Psychol., 24(2): 105-121.
Ghaith G (2003b). Effects of the learning together model of cooperative
learning on english as a foreign language reading achievement, aca-

demic self-esteem and feelings of school alienation. Bilingual Res. J.,
27(3): 451-474.
Gillies RM (2006). Teachers and students verbal behaviors during
cooperative and small-group learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 76(2):
271-287.
Gungor A (2004). Cooperative learning, reading comprehension,
strategy use and attitude. Unpublished PhD thesis, Dokuz Eylul
University Educational Sciences Institute, Izmir, Turkey.
Hazne M, Berger R (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects,
and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing
cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics
classes. Learn. Instr. J. 17(1): 29-41.
Hennessy D, Evans R (2006). Small-group learning in the community
college classroom. The Community College Enterprise. 12(1): 93-
110.
Hess PM (2004). A study of teachers selection and mpementation of
meta-cognitive reading strategies for fourth/fifth grade reading
comprehension from a succes for all reading program perspective
moving beyond the fundamentals. Unpublished doctorate thesis,
University of the Pacific Stockton, California.
Kapka D, Oberman DA (2001). Improving student writing skills through
the modeling of the writing process. Research Project, Saint Xavier
University and SkyLight Professional Development Field-Based
Masters Program. ERIC ED 453 536.
Kayiran BK, Iflazoglu A (2007). The effects of cooperative learning
method supported by multiple ntelligences theory on attitudes toward
turkish language course and reading comprehension achievement.
Eruasian J. Educ. Res., 29: 129-141.
Levine E (2001). Reading your way to scientific literacy. J. Coll. Sci.
Teach., 31(2): 122-125.
Lin E (2006). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Sci.
Teach., 73(5): 35-39.
Madden NA, Stevens RJ, Slavin RE (1986). Reading instruction in the
mainstream: a cooperative learning approach (Report No. 5). The
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
Maloof J, White VKB (2005). Team study training in the college biology
laboratory. J. Biol. Educ., 39(3): 120-124.
Durukan 109
Pala A (1995). Cooperative learning where the foreign language
teaching. Unpublished master thesis, Dokuz Eylul University
Educational Sciences Institute, Izmir, Turkey.
Sachs GT, Candlin CN, Rose KR (2003). Developing cooperative
learning in the efl/esl secondary classroom. RELC J., 34(3): 338-369.
Senemoglu N (1997). Development, learning and teaching:
implementing theory. Ankara: Spot Publications.
Shaaban K (2006). An initial study of the effects of cooperative learning
on reading comprehension, vocabulary aquisition an motivation to
read. Read. Psychol., 27(5): 377-403.
Siegel C (2005). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative
learning. J. Educ. Res., 98(6): 339-349.
Slavin RE (1980). Cooperative learning. Rev. Educ. Res., 50(2): 315-
342.
Slavin RE, Madden, NA, Karweit N, Livermon BJ, Dolan L (1995).
Success for all: First year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for
reforming urban education. Amer. Educ. Res. J., 27: 255-278.
Stevens RJ, Slavin RE (1995). The cooperative elementary school:
effects on students achievement, attitudes, and social relations. Am.
Educ. Res. J., 32(2): 321-351.
Stevens RJ (2003). Student team reading and writing: a cooperative
learning approach to middle school literacy instruction. Educ. Res.
Eval., 9(2): 137-160.
Yalcin A (2002). Turkish methods of teaching. New York: Akcag
Publications.
Yaman B (1999). Combined cooperative reading and writing technique
oriented academic achievements exemplified students with reading
comprehension lesson Turkish Turkish lesson concerning the impact
on attitudes. Unpublished master's thesis, Cukurova University Social
Sciences Institute, Adana, Turkey.